Saturday, October 22, 2011

A Suggested Demand For The Occupation

It is not for me to say what the demands of the Occupy movement should consist of. But if it was up to me, this is what I would say.

To the mainstream media, acting governments, and TPTB,
You say you want to know what the occupiers' demands are. Fair enough. Here is one:
We demand that you respect the rule of law, and apply it fairly. The following persons stand accused of crimes against humanity and numerous other sickening transgressions: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Benjamin Netanyahu, Stephen Harper, Queen Elizabeth II, Henry Kissenger, Joseph Ratinger (aka, Pope Benedict XVI). The evidence against these persons is more than sufficient to convict them. We demand that they be arrested and prosecuted. They must be tried publicly and by jury. This is not a complete list, but you can start with these, and more names will follow. This is not the sum of our demands. Honouring this demand will not end the occupation. However, if you fail to honour it, we will not disperse willingly, or consider any other solutions that you propose.Yours
Ours sincerely,
Humanity.

14 comments:

Bush and Blair behind bars for war crimes would be a very good headline start! You could follow up with Obama, Cameron, and Berlusconi.... As Max Keiser keeps shouting: its time for the guillotine... (figuratively at least...)

Hi Deepian."This is not a complete list," was surely the understatement of the year. What strikes me most about this demand, is that it sounds wildly radical, but it shouldn't. It shouldn't sound radical at all to say that powerful people must respect the common law.I just watched Oliver Stone's "JFK" the other night, with my son who'd never seen it before. When it was over, he said what most people say after seeing it. "I'm amazed that movie ever got made." Any reasonable person would have to conclude that the US government was involved in covering up the details of the crime, and still is. Everybody knows, yet nothing is done. If this doesn't change, no other solutions can help us.In lak'ech.

The genius behind the 'occupation' is precisely that it /won't/ engage with the powers-that-be by declaring a goal or a leader.

In a negotiation with a demonstration, the first thing a government negotiator will do is to try and identify the leader of the demonstration and their demands. This is first and foremost a /framing/ exercise: to get the demonstrators working within the dominant government system. Once this is established the demonstration must fail, because it has been brought down to the level of the system it is opposing. To refuse to identify a leader or any demands makes a demonstration unassailable by 'conventional' means. To declare 'demands' would be a failure.

Hi Speedbird.Excellent point! What you say is right. I won't deny it. The thing is, controlled opposition groups have already started framing demands. And the demands are unsurprisingly, no real threat to TPTB (as in the case of Adbusters), or exactly what TPTB wanted all along (UNPA). That's why I proposed the above preliminary demand as a condition of any engagement. TPTB can't accept that demand, not in a million years. Just as importantly, who among the protesters could call it unreasonable?In Lak'ech.

I just realised that I didn't say why I don't advise a simple refusal to issue any demands. It makes a difference that the majority of protesters are not aware of the dangers in making demands that you mentioned. I know (and TPTB know it too) that most people have a very low tolerance for uncertainty. They have never developed the mental discipline needed to remain indefinitely without a concrete agenda.So, an impossible demand, like the above, can provide that needed concrete focus. At the same time, it will help open the eyes of the majority to the evil character of those who now govern them.

Speedbird makes a point that I've been trying to make to my friends, too: to issue a list of demands is to accede to the implicit hegemonic notion that there is a party (TPTB) to whom demands can be addressed, in whose power it is to grant or refuse such demands. That the movement does not make coherent demands, and instead bombards the elite with a cacophony of 'unrealistic' demands that would (if implemented) bring down the system (e.g. ending corporate personhood) is precisely what it should be doing.

Also, the occupations will not end under any circumstances. It is not a protest movement; it is the seed of a fundamentally new omnihuman civilization. If you've read the ALTA/Shape of Things to Come reports you'll instantly recognize that these are the SOC/ACC (Self Organizing Collectives/Aquarian Consciousness Collectives) that the Time Monks described.

Oh, and a point I forget to make: I'd leave QEII out of it. She's a little old lady who just happens to have inherited a vast hegemony. I think she's done quite well, considering. That Blair fellow, well, he's a different matter :)

You have to understand the role of the (restored) monarchy in the constitution of the British state. The monarch is the source of all power but agrees to exercize none of it; the government exercizes power but only as its custodian. The idea is to prevent a certain kind of hot-headed abuse of power that led to the civil war (and other shenanigans). How well it works in practice is a matter for debate but that's the general idea.

Then again, our dear queen happens to hold trillions of dollars of wealth, amassed due to a long list of crimes against both the common people of the British Isles and their various imperial colonies, in full cooperation with the Rothschild dynasty. That her political power is technically ceremonial is immaterial to the question of her power ... which, judged by wealth alone, is considerable. I do not think the royals are as innocent as they pretend.

Hi Psychegram and Speedbird.Psychegram, I haven't read the ALTA/Shape of Things to Come reports, but I intend to. Do you have a link handy?The MSM has done a great job of making sure most people are seriously misinformed about what has gone wrong with the world. I'm really very worried that the majority will be manipulated into asking for something like the Tobin tax, which the elite now want anyway. Ad Busters, who initiated OWS in the first place, is trying to get them to do just that.I could have made a better list if I'd taken the time. It should have included only persons who are both functionally above the law, and are accused of crimes where the evidence would certainly have led to charges, if honestly considered. In other words, there should be no reasonable excuse for refusing to arrest them, and zero probability of them actually being arrested. That list was really just to make a point. Namely, that current governments are unable and/or unwilling to impose any functional restraint on powerful criminals. Any government that will not uphold, or even obey, the common law is not a legitimate government. This factually establishes the impossibility of negotiating in good faith with any such government. It's just a more psychologically advantageous way of telling them to piss off.

I put QE II on the list because of this: Pope + Queen Summoned for Child Trafficking, Genocide Crimes. I think they are telling the truth, but it would be hard to prove, especially as witnesses keep dying. Speedbird, you should check this out, or this. It's pretty hard not to conclude that the most powerful people on Earth, allegedly including the Queen and her family, are doing some really horrible things. She probably had a hand in Princess Diana's "accident" as well, but that would be just as difficult to prove. I can't quite see her as a harmless little old lady.In Lak'ech.

The so-called Robin Hood tax sounds like Br'er Rabbit screaming about the briar patch. It smelled wrong to me from the beginning ... from the slick, pre-prepared marketing campaign, to the way it leaves the overall system all but untouched by arguing that a small fraction of their worthless dollars can ever make up for what they've stolen.

Your point about making unrealistic demands is well taken. As a rhetorical tactic, demanding simple human justice for known war criminals in the full knowledge that their system will never grant it, in full view of the people, removes that system's moral basis....

.... while the Movement feeds, treats and houses any and all who come to them. The difference is already stark, for those paying attention. It will become starker still.

Loyalties will switch faster than it now seems possible to believe, even those who, like you, have been holding fast in the War of Consciousness for so long, knowing it is possible but with no sign in the temporal realm that it is even the remotest possibility.

2012 will be a VERY interesting year. After all, the Mayan Calendar ends tomorrow.... ;)

"2012 will be a VERY interesting year. After all, the Mayan Calendar ends tomorrow.... ;)"

Yes it does, according to Calleman. I haven't been able to accept his revised date, since I heard him explain the reason for it. In two different interviews, he said when asked, that he revised it on the grounds that he thought the count should end on 13 Ahau. Even if that were a good reason to change the date, why not choose the closer 13 Ahau date, which would be July 14, 2012? As far as I can tell, no one has asked, and he has never said. I just hope the dark occultists behind the NWO aren't planning to use the energy invested in tomorrow's end date for something nasty.

That knowledge was lost to the Maya. Probably the astronomer-priests were not among their direct ancestors, or they were unable to pass on their knowledge.I think the count was correlated from dated inscriptions that could be retroactively timed, such as astronomical events. The dates are given in the format of five cycles of descending length, starting (in the long count) with 0.0.0.0.1, (Aug. 12, 3114 BC) and ending with 13.0.0.0.0, (Dec. 21, 2012 AD).I found this article interesting.

I was just coming back to say, "no sooner do you point this out to me, than Reality Sandwich posts this." Hah. I can't believe he fooled me like that ... his takedown of Arguelles had me thinking he was on the up and up.